Good day folks.
I've been reading this forum on/off for years and I thought I had a good grasp on how the courts approach common law relationships; however, a friend is currently ending a long term (19 years) common law relationship, and I am surprised by what his lawyer is telling him.
The lawyer is saying that, due to the length of the common law relationship, the court will treat them like they were married. This means equalizing all property and she will be automatically entitled to SS. Is there any truth to this?
Some background:
They live in ON, and always have for the full duration of cohabitation.
He's 46, university educated and makes significantly more than her. Employed full time and always has been. No issues with health.
She's 45, college educated and makes about $95,000/year. Employed full time and always has been. Her career progressed to a manager position during their cohabitation. No issues with health. She has one child (now 27 and not living at home) from a previous relationship that my friend treated as his own (locus parentis).
They jointly own a home that recently sold for $600,000. They intend to split the equity. He plans on giving her all the furniture.
They have independent RRSPs. His has significantly more than her. Based on what his lawyer is saying, he's prepared to give her $75,000 of his RRSPs.
And finally, his lawyer says that SS will be automatic and for life. Based on the online calculator, the mean amount is just shy of $2,000/month.
The SS is what really bothers me - about $2,000/month for life simply because the common law relationship was long term (19 years).
Is there any merit to what the lawyer is saying? I'm familiar with the idea of unjust enrichment/constructive trust, but I don't see it as applicable in this case. I also don't see any entitlement for SS based on compensatory nor non-compensatory reasons. Am I missing something here?
I've been reading this forum on/off for years and I thought I had a good grasp on how the courts approach common law relationships; however, a friend is currently ending a long term (19 years) common law relationship, and I am surprised by what his lawyer is telling him.
The lawyer is saying that, due to the length of the common law relationship, the court will treat them like they were married. This means equalizing all property and she will be automatically entitled to SS. Is there any truth to this?
Some background:
They live in ON, and always have for the full duration of cohabitation.
He's 46, university educated and makes significantly more than her. Employed full time and always has been. No issues with health.
She's 45, college educated and makes about $95,000/year. Employed full time and always has been. Her career progressed to a manager position during their cohabitation. No issues with health. She has one child (now 27 and not living at home) from a previous relationship that my friend treated as his own (locus parentis).
They jointly own a home that recently sold for $600,000. They intend to split the equity. He plans on giving her all the furniture.
They have independent RRSPs. His has significantly more than her. Based on what his lawyer is saying, he's prepared to give her $75,000 of his RRSPs.
And finally, his lawyer says that SS will be automatic and for life. Based on the online calculator, the mean amount is just shy of $2,000/month.
The SS is what really bothers me - about $2,000/month for life simply because the common law relationship was long term (19 years).
Is there any merit to what the lawyer is saying? I'm familiar with the idea of unjust enrichment/constructive trust, but I don't see it as applicable in this case. I also don't see any entitlement for SS based on compensatory nor non-compensatory reasons. Am I missing something here?
Comment